Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Lot of coaching outfits.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Good afternoon. This is the House Appropriations Committee. It is Thursday, January. It's about 02:45, and we're delighted to have Senator Welch with us back from Washington to come and talk with us. And welcome Senator, we're just very glad to have you here and we're happy to chat with you and talk about whatever you'd like to

[Speaker 0]: talk to us about. Well, I'm more than welcome, thank you. I appreciate being here, and it's a thrill for me to be back in the building. Spent thirteen years here, everything that I learned about how to legislate, I learned right here. And I think that's still true, you know, the ability of Vermont legislators, Republican or Democrat, to shape a common goal of trying to make the state a better place, even amongst fierce disagreements on policy, we need some of that in Washington, family, where it's not about somebody disagreeing with any other party being an enemy, but it's somebody to negotiate with. So let me give you a little report, wanted to talk about the budget and express my awareness of what incredible challenge the state has, and we're not unique in this respect. But we've gone from the very activist response that the federal government had to all our states with COVID. The economy is literally shut down, quite astonishing. I remember the night the emergency was declared, I was coming back from Washington and I was taking a late flight, which I don't usually take, but on the way out I got a call from American Airlines asking me if I was still coming, and I never get those, and I said yes, and then they said, well when you get here we'll be ready to go. And I wasn't late. It turned out I was the only passenger on the plane. Literally.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Have your own private jet!

[Speaker 0]: Let me move up in the first class. Didn't have to conceal my good ride, but that's that's how it was. It's like that, and I remember driving I got into Burlington and I drove down, and there was nobody on the highway, so just the economy was stopped and the federal government responded and it included an immense amount of fiscal stimulus to help states that were hammered because we weren't going have tax revenues. And then of course that became some issue after we got through COVID and too much, and inflation, all those things that we're still dealing with, but the bottom line is, you went from a situation where you had the federal government providing significant financial assistance to the states to cope with COVID, and where some states, I think, were really wise in how they spent the money and established things that had more durability, and think Vermont did a good job there. But now we're in a situation where that money, number one, has obviously dried up. But number two, we're in a situation where even what is appropriated by Congress is being clawed back by the administration. So you are in this world that we have never been in before, where even if there is a line item in the budget that was approved by the Congress, and the administration, particularly the very aggressive actions of the Office of Management and Budget Director, that's Mr. Vogt, they take that money back, and it creates obviously a level of uncertainty that is an additional burden for appropriateness, where you are juggling with more needs and you can find less revenue than you need, you are forced to make very, very tough decisions over the course of your time here, but then once you make the decision, in the past you could be careful that what you were including in your decision about an amount of money from the federal government being there, you could always have confidence it would be, and now you can. And in fact, you know, when I was sitting outside, my office just sent me a notice, you'll get this, but that the OMB is now targeting 13 states, and Vermont's on the list for a super review of the governmental money that went to it. So I don't know what that is going to result in, but it's really improper for the Fed, because that's a political decision, it's basically blue states, and as we all know, there should not be the use of executive authority basically for political reasons. It's one thing to have a big debate about policy, how much money should be sent, but if the money has been sent, then you are essentially interrogating political, with what you regard as your political, obviously you're going after their appropriations, or you're weaponizing the justice department, that's completely off limits, completely off limits, right, we don't do that. We call it on the merits and do it. So that's a worry I have for you, and then in addition to that, and this is the long term, the federal government has to be a partner to the states, and we can have a debate about how best to do it and how to spend money and how much and how to raise it. Those are, that's really the day to day work of any of us who serve in the legislative body. But there's got to be a partnership, because the federal government does have fiscal capacity. You know, the state is not in a position to respond to Hurricane Irene or the floods of July 2023 or 2024. The state is not in a position to fund the whole healthcare system, the federal government has to play a role in trying to make healthcare affordable. And what I'm seeing now is the administration has achieved its goal, their legislation was the one big beautiful bill, which really reduced the federal partnership with the state, and then also really shifting an immense amount of burden to the states, Vermont not unique, but Vermont with our small population, relatively low income gets really jeopardized more than ever, but I'm very concerned about all the healthcare cuts that were made, and the next year that's when that starts to go into effect, and I know you've been talking to community hospitals just as I have, they are going to be providing care when people show up, they're not going to ask them how they are going to pay for it, they'll do it. But those folks showing up are not going to have Medicaid, so that means the hospital doesn't get reimbursed and that means at a certain point they're not financially sustainable. So that's one. And the revenue base cut, that was part of the tax cuts related to the heart of that bill are largely allocated, really is true, they are largely allocated to the higher income folks and to the corporations, the multinational corporations, and taxing authority is always the challenge, how do you raise the money, but you have to have a fair tax policy, this is me speaking, this reflects my political perspective, each of us is entitled to our own point of view on this, but the distribution of taxes to the very wealthy comes at the expense of being able to fund programs like healthcare for monarchs, and a dynamic that we are in, and we are going have to adjust to, even if many of us in Congress and many in this room push back on some of those policies. But the added element of uncertainty is what I just read here, and that is that there is now going to be targeting of blue states, and I don't know what that means, I can't tell you, but it's not good, right? Because when you're in here making your decisions on the budget, it's not a blue state red state deal, it's figuring out, alright, how do we fund education? It's how do we fund our agency of commerce? What is it we want them to do, how can they do it better. It's what do we give up property taxes that are really killing Vermonters, and how much of the general fund budget can we put in to try to buy that down. I mean these are really, really hard decisions, and even as there may be, there are disagreements across the aisle on how best to do it, the goal is to get affordable education, affordable healthcare, you know, that's your goal, and you don't have the fiscal flexibility that the federal government has. So, I'm very upset actually about the role the federal government is starting to play where it's abandoning the responsibility, we have to be partners to the state. You know, I see my job as identical in the Senate as it was when I was here in the States Senate, and that is we all are here trying to make public policy that makes life easier for people we represent whose jobs are a lot harder than ours. How do you keep a firm, do you keep manufacturing business going in the midst of these tariffs and just the variability? But that's our job, is to help people have a better shot at being successful, and I think all of us acknowledge that a lot of the people we represent have a much harder job making things run, paying the bills, training the workforce, doing things that require constant daily attention. But it can only be done when there's a sense of partnership, a sense of shared commitment, some humility. We've got the vote on the one hand, but on the other hand, we've got the privilege, and our job is to try to help folks. What I'm seeing, and this is a tug of war now, in DC, but there is an attitude on the part of Russell Vogt and the administration, to basically take government out of a partnership role, pulling back on healthcare, pulling back on the environment, where we can actually have good jobs and maybe lower physicality costs. So it's tough times, and this is, I think, particularly challenging, not for a person, to all the people who are in this room, for real responsibility, is to try to cope with what I would say is a somewhat hostile federal government, and the federal government is also not only taking resources away, but taking stability away. So that's the world we're in, and I'm doing the best I can, Bernie is and Becca, to try to really essentially help from a kind of orientation in Washington, where we acknowledge we're all in it together, by working together are we going to make it better. So I really appreciate all that you are doing, and I wish I was coming here with an announcement about all the cash that we would be getting a front end loaded. We some

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: folks with questions, is that great? Mike? Thank

[Speaker 0]: you for coming, Senator. For some clawbacks you mentioned, are they legal? I don't think they are legal. I mean, one of the big, I think, crises that we have in our country right now is the abdication of the Congress, of its authorities. We have this dynamic where there's, I'm speaking by a massive executive overreach, it is being met with congressional capitulation. And the reason I say that is that the constitution here, the constitution, I'm subject to down there, the taxing and spending authority is vested in the legislature. And in the past, I've talked to Senator Leahy about this, if a president of either party was going to repudiate the legislatively passed budget, you allocated x dollars for schools, you allocated y dollars for the agency of congress, then legislators would be united in their opposition to that executive vocal reach. And that's really essential, because that's about checks and balances, okay? And the one thing that is the responsibility of anybody who serves in a legislative body, in my view, is that you protect the prerogatives, I'll say the prerogatives, it's the responsibility. I mean, that is your job, right, that's my job. And if you see that to an institution outside of Congress, in my case the general assembly of yours, you're giving up, and then that leads to the concentration of power, and that, as we all know, leads to bad things happening. But what you're seeing, what I'm seeing in Congress is that the president is doing these tariffs, the constitution says that's the job of the Congress, we have the job of appropriating and so taxing and spending, but what you're seeing is the administration pounding money, not spending it, even though we've authorized it and voted for it, and also going beyond that, by clawing back money, and then in some cases not even spending on some of the other, what the money is appropriated for. So this is a crisis in the Congress, in my view, is that we have to, as a Congress, accept our responsibility and not cede that to the executive. So that's a dynamic that's very much still underway. So, yeah, go ahead Dave, I have a

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: question to you, go ahead.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Senator, from your view, do you believe there are enough congresspeople up for reelection who might be in swing states who will have to moderate their views in such a way that they may take positions against the administration and give us perhaps different results. Well, I hope so, but you know, we've got a real problem with democracy, okay? And it's getting worse. We saw, for the first time in history in our country, we're having new congressional districts that are being drawn between the census, and explicitly for the purpose of trying to get advantage for the to start president Trump started this, but it ultimately the Democrats were replying in kind. So we're trying to develop these districts where the the politicians are picking their voters as opposed to their voters picking their representatives. So I think this partisan jury man is terrible, and the campaign finance is terrible. You know, when I first ran for Congress, I had a very, very good Republican candidate, including Christina Nolan, pardon me, Martha Rainville, and she was our agent in general, but very, very respected, and it was a jump off who was going to win that race. She and I sat down in the beginning, and we said, you know what, we don't want to run negative ads. So we made a pledge to each other that we wouldn't run negative ads. That is the last time in the history of the country that in a contested congressional race there were no negative ads. Now what happened after that, the next year Citizens United was passed, which said there could be unlimited contributions from super wealthy individuals. So now what happens is that these super PACs put money in on the basis of do they think that person will be a vote for the things I care about, fossil fuels, let's say, or deregulated finance, whatever the issue, and the candidates don't even control the money they get spent. So when Martha and I made that agreement, we were in charge of what ads went up there. Now you're not. In 2004, the 100 wealthiest individuals in the country contributed $44,000,000 to all the campaigns. Last year the 100 wealthiest contributed a billion dollars, okay? So these are some of the things that make it difficult. So you get these partisan gerrymandering districts, which I think is very bad. You've got this unlimited campaign spending, I think it's very, very bad. So, these are some of the challenges, and I'm pretty proud of them, because we've passed, the general assembly passed legislation putting a limit on how much could be spent in campaigns, and we're very proud of that, but it got overturned by the Supreme Court. So there are some things that are making it tougher. John and then Lynn.

[Representative John Kascenska (Member)]: Oh, sure, thanks. You might go next. I'll go after Lynn. Obviously, across healthcare, it's where it is today. Hospitals have been doing the best they can to try to manage that the best they can with their oversight, things they can do budgetarily here at Prevent Care Board. Was a trustee for a long time at the hospital and we've had a good relationship with them to manage our budget And the best we yet, you know, here we are, we're to figure out our budgets here and we're falling short these days here. The payer mix is different than what it has been in the past. We're seeing a lot more Medicaid, Medicare, you know, portions in our revenue sources here. And I've talked to lots of people about this, and they always kind asked the question here, especially those that are involved in the provision of healthcare, you know, to be able to move better reimbursement from, Medicare, Medicaid, do you see a pathway moving ahead Beyond the subsidy piece, I don't think, except going away at this stage.

[Speaker 0]: All right, let's just be candid, not to really stop, I think the direction we're going is the wrong direction. Fifteen million people are gonna lose their healthcare. You won a big beautiful bill, alright? So, we have to deal with the cost side of healthcare, We do, I agree. But you don't deal with the cost side by taking away people's healthcare. Still get sick, and they show up to the hospital. So how do you have a system where it's a sustainable system, because these premium increases we're getting, they're not affordable or sustainable. So the things that I, in our healthcare system, we spend the most, basically two times as much here than in European countries, Canada, it's not that they don't have their own challenges on healthcare, but they have better outcomes by public health measures, longevity, infant mortality, and they spend half as much as more sustainable. So obviously, something like us paying three, four, five times the amount for a prescription drug that the rest of the world faces is a problem. Bottom line here, there's got to be governmental involvement in healthcare, but it's got to be about trying to reform it, make it affordable and sustainable, not thinking the answer to this is to take away healthcare. This

[Representative John Kascenska (Member)]: just

[Speaker 0]: will make it worse, know, those folks who no longer have Medicaid, and it is a lower reimbursement, so you've got a good point there, okay? But ironically

[Representative John Kascenska (Member)]: It's not the only

[Speaker 0]: issue. No, but problem too is you take away their healthcare, right? They get sick, they go to the hospital, services are provided, guess who ends up getting the cost shift? It's the private payers, it's the employers, right? So that dynamic is not sustainable. And see what's so terrible, you can't control it. I was really interested in healthcare, and we worked a lot when I was here. But you've got the employer sponsored healthcare with ERISA, you've got Medicaid, you've got Medicare, and you don't even have jurisdiction over a lot of this. And so this is where the federal government has to play a major role. We have to, and it has to be about focusing on this cost side, Because my view is that if you don't control the cost, you're not going to maintain the access.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah, I just want to say about the encountering of the funds. My memory serves me where the Congress students come out with Richard Nixon districts back in the 70s I would assume that that's still all the books out of. Is there a legal way that case that he gave back then? Because I'm not sure he ever did that but it seems to me like that was set up an honor for many, many, many decades.

[Speaker 0]: That's right, and that was at a time when whether you were a Republican in Congress or you were a Democrat in Congress, you were in Congress, that meant you had to protect your responsibility, spending your taxes. Those things are gone, there's a lot of capitulation. There have been court cases that have been successful in reversing some of these decisions the administration has made to people to vote. But it's constant, the administration, they just do it again, and they do it again. And it's like, how many lawsuits can you file, how can we keep up with it? Meanwhile, the folks who are depending on the money in real time are on hold, and damage is done, obviously. Let's say you just didn't pay, you stopped sending the funds to the agency of commerce and community development, mean that would take a toll on them, even if you went to court eight months later they would say they were not in charge. That's okay. So it's a very aggressive administration effort and they have a lot of tools. You know, in my lament here is that anybody who has authority, the leaders I've admired, they have restraint. They don't do things just because they can't. They understand that even though they may want to do it, they've got to make a judgment about what's the collateral consequence of this. And restraint is necessary quality, my view, in a political leader. And again, I say that whether it's a Republican oriented or Democratic oriented leader, and that restraint is one of the things, and Vermont has that, I think, we don't think that we come up with a pine and sky answer for We know it's hard, we know it takes effort, we know it takes follow through, but that's not the world I'm in.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So, Senator, in eight days it will be January 30, Continuing resolution is Are we going to have another government shutdown?

[Speaker 0]: I don't think so. I do not think we will. I'm not hearing any of my colleagues talk about it.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: What's going to happen if the CR is expiring January 30 and nothing is going

[Speaker 0]: Well, don't have an answer, but are two things. One is we could get a budget deal, that's getting complicated by what's going on in Minnesota with ICE, right? So, that's a big thing, we're not here to talk about that. But the options are that we get a budget, and I'm actually, the budget that the appropriators agreed to outside of the DHS budget is actually pretty bipartisan. So there's a strong desire among my Republican colleagues, Susan Collins in the Senate and Tom Cole in the House, and their counterparts, Rosa Vie Laro and Patty Murray, to get a budget and have the Congress begin the budget and not do a CR, because that's also advocating our responsibility. And they actually have put together something that I'd be very, very supportive of, and there's latest study of maneuvers, there's three budget bills, we usually do 12, or 12 of the ones, we have to do 12 a year, there's three that are up, and if we could vote on them separately, two of those three would definitely go through with great bipartisan support. The House leadership is combining them, so you have to vote on all three at once, and a lot of us have significant questions about what's going on with ICE. Yes. Okay, and those are fair questions, so my view is that the responsible approach here would be to take the budgets that separate out the questions, so all of us could vote yes or no on the labor HHS, this Healthy Human Services budget, which is really important. And then if we have an objection on a particular aspect of the Homeland Security budget, being able to vote on, then that is up to the legislative leadership, is Mike Johnson, the House. So, I don't know, but I'm not hearing people say that they think the shutdown is our remedy here, okay?

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: But it's not very far away. That's a lot of work to do. You're here in Vermont, I don't know, is anybody working in Washington right now? I mean, we gonna some it's just not very many days till next Friday to get

[Speaker 0]: I this can tell why it's from this chair. Yeah.

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Member)]: See. Like,

[Speaker 0]: focus on the practice. You do anything the next eighteen days without turning you down.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Happy to help, Senator.

[Speaker 0]: Know, things don't get done until they do, so you're making the correct observation. It concerns me. Well, appreciate it.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Go ahead, Tiffany. Is there any time?

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah. Oh, okay. All right.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: You know, I keep on looking for all the reasons to be optimistic. Because we're sitting here, we're coming to work, we're wrestling with these things, and I think that the motivation is that we believe that we can get something done. And right now, it feels like a defensive posture, right? I mean, we're trying to protect folks given what is happening in the world. I guess wondering, so what makes you hopeful

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: as you're doing your work?

[Speaker 0]: What makes me hopeful is just seeing how everyday people carry out and contend with the situation they face and do the best they can. And I find that inspiring. And what I find really discouraging is when we have been away, where they start to question whether it's worth it. But that's one. The second thing is, you know, I feel very lucky, I'm older, I don't have kids going to college, they're out. I own my house. You know, the way I got to complain about it, but all of you know that for the younger people it's a much different thing. And I feel really fortunate to have a job, just as you have a job, where you don't necessarily like what's going on, but you have a voice to express on behalf of your constituents that you care about what they care about and you want to help. And, you know, at my stage in life, to be able to have a job that has a lot of purpose to it, even if it's frustrating, I feel really blessed. And I felt that way when I was in this building, doing what you guys are doing. It's the same thing. Literally no different, okay, it's the same thing. But the reality is we have a tougher time, because the norms have been checked. But you know, I think about this in my own case, when I came here, I got out of law school, and she had some work on K Street in Washington, Wall Street, I lived on Bridge Street, record reduction. My first job, I was a public defender, I was making $9,000 a year. But I got a department for $135. I didn't have student debt. So Peter Welch, today, I want her to do that, and have student debt and face our housing crisis. So I think I feel some obligation to do what I can to make it possible for somebody to do what I So, get, you know, I feel so fortunate to have a job. It's the same job as your job. Really, it's literally the same, where you have an opportunity to try to help. You know what,

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: one second, Lynn, you need to go to the floor for this bill. Still getting the work done. Other questions of Yes, Tom.

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Member)]: So, Senator, thank you again for coming. Two things. One, you used the word stability, and I kind of look at in my everyday what I see around and what I experience personally is, like, everything that's happening coming out of D. C. Creates chaos. And the internal chaos, the mental health side of this, when people who have been receiving subsidies for their health care, something that we all supported well, I can't say all. And I think this is what's hard for me is that after tropical storm Irene, we could say we're all in this together after the flooding. We could say we're all in this together. My community flooded, John's community flooded, we're all in this together. I don't believe that anymore.

[Speaker 0]: Right, and that would be a huge casualty, because that's the world of democracy. I agree with you.

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Well, it's also the chivalry in this building. It's the idea that we can put things aside. And I just don't feel that anymore. I don't feel any trust going across the aisle. I just want to ask, like, when you're down in DC in the infrequent times that you're on the floor together with your fellow senators or what you talk about, do people, why are they so locked in only politically when we're looking at things that are so morally devastatingly difficult to imagine and they don't, they, the Republicans in this case, aren't able or capable of speaking out against what's happening in a way that will promote change because you're in the minority now. And it's not a landslide minority, but it just seems like that's how they're acting. But

[Representative John Kascenska (Member)]: it's

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Member)]: affecting, I'll speak only for myself, the chaos is affecting how I look at this work here because what's happening in DC and globally is devastating.

[Speaker 0]: No, I agree with you, and it's again, I want to be careful here, because I don't want this to sound heartening, but the rhetoric that the President uses, where he disagrees with our scum, or the Homeland Security Secretary talking about these horrible people and calling them scum, and objectifying others who disagree with what they're proposing, creates an atmosphere where people you disagree with are your enemy, as opposed to somebody you've been an adversary, and it's a real difference, you know, and it's a real challenge because one of the things that people want me to do all the time is to act out more. I try to be very clear about where I stand on things, but I think it's very important not to vilify people I disagree with. I mean, I actually think being respectful, being loving, I think that matters. You know, it really does. And it's hard to do in an atmosphere where there's so much venom and attacking that's being done, and a lot of the people that support us, want us to respond in kind, because they are hurt by it, and they want some recognition of how outrageous this is, and I think you can articulate that, but for me, it's also important to stick with what I learn here, and that is give the benefit of the doubt to somebody that you disagree with, and do that even when you're kind of wondering about it. So it's like a choice of how you want to be in the world, even if right at the moment, all these things are happening, that are really just hurting people. I mean, that's the thing that I hear from from others, you know, Peter, why don't you do something, or why can't we? That's really what it's made. But you've to do your work, you know? Yes you can, in the most constructive and positive way possible, have some confidence that it would make a difference in the water.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Glad you're there, it's not an easy place to be. I was down for an NCSL conference before Thanksgiving, and

[Speaker 0]: yeah, I could feel it. No, and we gotta get through I'm

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: the administration in to talk, and it was very different.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, it is, it really is. But anyway, sticking it out. Do believe that, and we'll get through it, but we're not quite sure how yet. But we need major reform, things like campaign finance reform, jury, a lot of these things make people cut off from having the confidence that they're both makes a difference. Know, Vermont has always been in the forefront of that, with the Supreme Court that we have, which I think is making some really bad decisions that are hurting a democracy, you know, and the community that are oppressing the past, I think that's really terrible. So whatever happens, I think we're going have to be working hard on some major reforms. So the citizens are put first. So thank you. Thank you so

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We much, really appreciate it.

[Speaker 0]: We regularly Jeanette White back home. Oh wow.

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Member)]: She said, Say hi. Oh, you've seen how it occurs.

[Speaker 0]: Jeanette White used to terrorize me.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That's great. Yes, so I think we're done for the day. The things that we're possibly going to have are going to be pushed up tomorrow. Adam is going to come in right at 9AM and going to unless Nolan, do you have anything for us?

[Speaker 0]: Nope. Okay. Maybe something later. I guess we'll be getting it.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah, okay. So we're still live. We'll be here again at 9AM. If you've got things you're following up on, be ready to talk about them tomorrow.

[Speaker 0]: So